SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – There will soon be more focus on flushes and scrutiny over showers with a new law signed in by the governor.

California is now the first state in the nation to enact tough new water-efficiency standards. The controversial rules limit how many gallons a person can use inside their home per day.

RELATED: Sacramento Looks To Ease Farmers’ Groundwater Use With Wastewater

“So that everyone in California is at least integrating efficiency into our preparations for climate change,” said Felicia Marcus, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.

So, what are the new rules?

In 2022, the new indoor water standard will be 55 gallons per person, per day. by 2030, it will fall to 50 gallons.

“With a child and every day having to wash clothes, that’s, just my opinion, not feasible. But I get it and I understand that we’re trying to preserve…but 55 gallons a day?” said Tanya Allen, who has a 4-year-old daughter.

In 2022, the new indoor water standard will be 55 gallons per person, per day. by 2030, it will fall to 50 gallons.

Standards will be based on a region’s climate and other factors instead of just one standard for the whole state.

So which is it? 55 g/d down to 50 g/d for the entire wretched state, or localized thresholds? This article was very poorly written.

And how, exactly, do they propose to track how many people live in a single residence from month to month? Do children or infants count as much as an adult? When your college kid comes home for spring break and adds 2+ more showers each day and more laundry than an E.R. ward, do you get additional rations for those 2 weeks? Will unused rations be carried over to the next month, or will everyone start going crazy with water usage on the last day of the billing period to make sure they use their full allotment? And what of large apartment buildings with a single meter for several hundred people?

Absolutely genius plan. Only a Democrat perched up in Sacramento, fattened on the spoils of public "service" could possibly come up with something so profoundly irrational and unworkable.

Reminds me of the idiocy that passes for city government in LA LA Land. Back in the drought they issued the edict from on high that lawn sprinklers could only be used three days a week: Mon, Wed, Fri -- for the entire fucking city. What do you suppose happens when every sprinkler for nearly 4M people comes on all at once? The 100-year old, poorly maintained water mains started bursting all over the city. Countless millions of gallons of the precious were lost.

Sorry, can't afford to maintain the infrastructure. Gotta pay for those sweet public pensions somehow.

Can't we get a daddy figure as a leader that will tell us don't worry be happy ? Where's Reagan when you need him ?

Democrats created fuel shortages, you know who fixed it? Reagan!

Democrats are now creating idiotic water shortages? Guess who is going to fix it? Hint... it won't be a democrat.

Democrats are in power to make sure we have to use less, and pay more for it. Evil fucking dirtbags. I saw Feinsteins commercials, she talks about protecting some desert from being drilled for water, but doesn't give a fuck that people need water. She is fucking rich, she doesn't give a fuck what us poor peasants have to live with.

You damn right that Democrats are fucking toxic garbage for out state.

Yes, of course. Once again science and facts are a vast left wing conspiracy.

Do you even do 15 minutes of research before declaring this to be a made up problem ? No, of course not. Maybe it's republican talking points you get mailed or online ?

I guess maybe it's brilliant ?

Perhaps the strategy goes something like this: "If humans need to live with a smaller footprint because of population growth and finite natural resources, then so be it. But let's have democrats be the ones that always have to fight for the ways in which we have to change our habits, and especially whenever regulations are used to force the issue. That way republicans can be the ones that are always saying it's not necessary - we should be free to happily live beyond our means, we shouldn't have to accept any decrease in creature comforts and wasteful use of resources."

Do you even do 15 minutes of research before declaring this to be a made up problem ? No, of course not. Maybe it's republican talking points you get mailed or online ?

I guess maybe it's brilliant ?

Perhaps the strategy goes something like this: "If humans need to live with a smaller footprint because of population growth and finite natural resources, then so be it. But let's have democrats be the ones that always have to fight for the ways in which we have to change our habits, and especially whenever regulations are used to force the issue. That way republicans can be the ones that are always saying it's not necessary - we should be free to happily live beyond our means, we shouldn't have to accept any decrease in creature comforts and wa...

Democrats are in power to make sure we have to use less, and pay more for it. Evil fucking dirtbags. I saw Feinsteins commercials, she talks about protecting some desert from being drilled for water, but doesn't give a fuck that people need water. She is fucking rich, she doesn't give a fuck what us poor peasants have to live with.

You damn right that Democrats are fucking toxic garbage for out state.

There is a lot of information easily available online. Is considering all of reality a liberal conspiracy the way that intelligent humans solve problems ? In my opinion, no.

In contrast to surface water, groundwater use has largely been unregulated under California law until recently. Many basins have experienced long-term overdraft, and 21 of the state’s 515 basins are now considered “critically overdrafted.” Declining groundwater levels also cause problems for users of surface water when these sources are interconnected. Groundwater basins are replenished by rainfall, streamflow, and irrigation water. As pumping causes groundwater levels to drop, basins can draw in water from adjacent rivers and streams, reducing river flows and harming habitat.

Are humans willing to limit their own reproduction voluntarily, or face MANDATORY limits on resources and eventually reproductive rights? Pick one! Quickly, too- this tragedy of the commons gets worse every day.

Are humans willing to limit their own reproduction voluntarily, or face MANDATORY limits on resources and eventually reproductive rights? Pick one! Quickly, too- this tragedy of the commons gets worse every day.

The tragedy is trying to grow wet-climate crops in the desert, which accounts for the vast majority of water use in California, which is part of the Dry Belt that stretches roughly around the middle of the planet from the Sahara to the Arabian to the Gobi Deserts, then over to the US Southwest and California.

But no politician in California has the balls to talk about the industry that is responsible for very little of national or California GDP, yet uses many times the water of Residential.

Since Residences have to reduce to 50 gallons, how about farmers be forced to stop growing Alfalfa, which itself is something like 25% of all Agra water use and would make a massive dent in the Water Supply Problem. Add a ban on Almonds and Pistachios and you'd eliminate 1/3rd of Agra's water use.

Are humans willing to limit their own reproduction voluntarily, or face MANDATORY limits on resources and eventually reproductive rights? Pick one! Quickly, too- this tragedy of the commons gets worse every day.

In first world countries, that lower birthrate happens over time. The issue is governments feeling the need to make up the shortfall through immigration or policies encouraging having more children.

I think it will be debated and there will be a better way. Why not just make people pay an increasing rate for water they use over a certain amount per month. Make the price scale up in such a way that it's a strong incentive to conserve.

I think it will be debated and there will be a better way. Why not just make people pay an increasing rate for water they use over a certain amount per month. Make the price scale up in such a way that it's a strong incentive to conserve.

I don't think it's a solution. They tried this same thing with fuel, and it failed, created inflation. Gas sellers made money, big time. Everyone else was fucked.

Same thing here, water price will skyrocket. The poor and the middle class will be fucked. Only solution is more desalination plants to create more water. But that's not what this shitty government wants, they want us all to suffer and pay more for less. While their rich cocksucker friends run off with all the money, and no water shortages.

I think it will be debated and there will be a better way. Why not just make people pay an increasing rate for water they use over a certain amount per month. Make the price scale up in such a way that it's a strong incentive to conserve.

Isn't this really an infrastructure problem with no large dams build in the last 40+ years? Of course, folks say that Los Vaqueros, etc Mel. and so forth would qualify but those are drops in the bucket compared to Shasta/Oroville etc.. Not sure where we are to directly pumping back into aquifers etc (helps with limiting evaporation, etc..). Fact is: this is about government control pure and simple. If you do the simple math, more rain falls across this state then we ever would need to capture to satisfy nearly unlimited growth.

Even if you don't want to build new dams because (1) most of this would have to be in high sierra areas with granite to prevent evaporation, etc... and (2) the environment / regulatory hurdles to do such a build out cannot be overcome (even if no politics), there is still the simple option of capturing water the falls on cities TODAY.

That we have a drought problem is contrived. And, it is already against the law afaik that that you can't just sink your own well anymore. The age of DIY has been over since the mid 90s and the cost to sink a well is extensive ( we are talking 20k min for 200' hole - retail). Farmers actually have started buying their own rigs and setting up consortiums/proxies to meet the permitting and well driller certifications. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WAT§ionNum=13750.5

The most economical solution is to reduce agricultural water use by 5%, which would result in an increase of 20% for household use. Right now 80% of the water goes to agriculture. We export almonds to China when each little almond uses up 1 gallon of water. We also supply agriculture products to the rest of the country. Either we produce and sell less agriculture products, or we tack on some kind of an export tax to pay for water desalination plants. Those plants don't come cheap. I'm already paying $350.00 per month just for water, and I can't afford it. Baltimore residents pay nothing for their water. Nothing. So unfair.@zzyzzx it's only fair you pay part of my water bill. Your fair share comes to $100.00 per month. Thank You.

I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.

I get that we don’t want to deplete a vital resource. Almonds aren’t that important.

But why not build desalination plants. Seems like a no brainer solution.

It's coming to that. We will build desalination plants, as will regions around the globe that need more water. It takes a lot of energy to extract salt free water from the ocean, and that makes it very expensive. Declining costs of solar energy will make desalination plants more and more feasible. My guess....By 2030 we won't have a water shortage problem as declining clean energy costs along with advancing technology in desalination plants will make drinkable water extraction from the ocean very economical.

I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.

yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering. if you limit that watering, you'll turn CA into a damn desert. That's destruction of our society.

I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.

yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering. if you limit that watering, you'll turn CA into a damn desert. That's destruction of our society.

Watering replentishes aquifers. Why would we limit something like that? If it's good for aquifers it's good for California!

I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.

yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering. if you limit that watering, you'll turn CA into a damn desert. That's destruction of our society.

55gal "plus" estimated landscape usage since most have one meter for water limited by statue. Check the actual bill out.

(B) For landscape irrigated through dedicated or residential meters or connections, water efficiency equivalent to the standards of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance set forth in Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 490) of Division 2 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, as in effect the later of the year of the landscape's installation or 1992. An urban retail water supplier using the approach specified in this subparagraph shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas.

I really find it odd that we are willing to continually cede power to government over our water use when there is actually plenty right now with planning and capacity extension. Simply do the math - look at average rainfall over a geographic region and calculate the billions of acres of water and where does it go? We let water out of reservoirs to ... get this .. make way for the snow melt. This means there is simply not the storage that is needed. Also, for salmon/fish etc... there are planned mandatory releases of cold water as well, etc...

It is interesting how the government has its people pointing fingers at each other as the "main" culprit. Farmers... no ... the high growth of population. ... no ... the beef industry. no... almonds... the fish. Etc...

Divide and conquer instead of actually fixing the problem.

Until 2012 it was actually ILLEGAL in CA to recapture rainwater. Gov Brown did fix that with his rainwater recapture act. But it is minimal effect.

Baltimore residents pay nothing for their water. Nothing. So unfair.@zzyzzx it's only fair you pay part of my water bill. Your fair share comes to $100.00 per month. Thank You.

Water is actually very expensive in Baltimore City. You see, the property tax rates are already 2X the surrounding area, and the income taxes higher as well. So the Democrats here decided to make water extremely expensive (like more expensive it is out west) as a way of increasing revenue.

The Boston-based economist found by analyzing the city’s census tracts that water unaffordability — already a problem for a third of households under international standards before the rate hikes took effect – has been exacerbated to a point where it’s depriving the city of revenue simply because many can no longer afford their bills.

At median income levels relative to a resident’s neighborhood, two-thirds of the city was able to afford water and sewer bills in 2016. By 2019, that share will drop to “more than half,” Colton wrote – and that doesn’t even include those who make far below median income.

Baltimore residents will pay about 33 percent more for water and be charged two new fees under a three-year plan.

The Board of Estimates voted to increase the water rate an average of 9.9 percent annually and sewer rates 9 percent a year through fiscal year 2019. The plan also calls for new "infrastructure" and "account management" charges. This is on top of O'Malley's rain tax.

They also switched from quarterly billing to monthly billing to hid the increase. My monthly bill is about equal to my previous quarterly bill from just a couple of years ago. The city blames aging infrastructure, but it's really overspending on education and lavish pensions, and corruption. In the surrounding suburban areas, water is still cheap yes.

The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The
conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons,
anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the
housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play
it.115 pages, $12.50